Bible Study For Our Times

[Davy]

You are conflating two distinct issues. The Bible never tells us that inspiration is a function of how a translation is done. Inspiration is related to the original documents, not to a methodology for transferring the message from one language to another. Paul said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3: 16), and the Greek, pasa graphē theopneustos, is speaking of the God-breathed originals.
....

I'm not the one doing the conflating, as you say.

Inspiration is by The Holy Spirit, it is how He reveals... the Truth in His written Word. That means the written Word has to exist beforehand, for us that is, since God already chose those who would write it down.

2 Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
KJV

Is that "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" idea about being inspired? Yes, of course, but by The Holy Spirit, not by man.

And that is what I am saying, to properly understand God's written Word, one must have the gift of The Holy Spirit, since it was written via The Holy Spirit. That is about revelation in understanding by God's Hand.

So which kind of Bible translator would be better trusted, someone who is a non-believer without The Holy Spirit, or one that is a believer with The Holy Spirit?

 

[Davy]

A paraphrase that misstates the original message is in error because it changes God’s Word. But this is equally true for a “literal” translation that also misstates the meaning because the translator shoehorned a verbatim structure into another language where it does not carry the same meaning. The authority is in the text God gave, not in man’s pet translation philosophy.

But I'm not saying all paraphrase type Bibles are totally inaccurate. Some actually translate the meaning of the original better than other translations. Study of the original manuscripts show that.


Here's an example of the problem I'm talking about...

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
KJV

Rom 7:18-19
18 I know that nothing good lives in me; that is, nothing good lives in my corrupt nature. Although I have the desire to do what is right, I don't do it.
(from GOD'S WORD Copyright © 1995 by God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. All rights reserved.)

Rom 7:18-19
18 I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it.
(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

Rom 7:18-19
18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't.
Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

Rom 7:18
18 For I know that in me, that is, in my lower self, nothing good has its home; for while the will to do right is present with me, the power to carry it out is not.
Weymouth

Rom 7:18-19
18 For I know that nothing good resides in me, that is, in my physical self; I can will, but I cannot do what is right.
Goodspeed

Those above Bible translations that use ideas other than the KJV "flesh" may have been trying to make what Paul was saying easier to understand, but it only creates confusion in my opinion. Those terms in those other translations leave the idea being about our literal flesh body. Satan sinned when he rebelled against God, yet he doesn't have a flesh body, but what he did does reveal he has a "sinful nature". But one cannot point to a flesh body in Satan's case. So that usage can actually point away... from the body of flesh that Paul was actually pointing to. Likewise with those other phrases, "physical self", "lower self", "corrupt nature", etc. Would those other translation examples be concept-driven, like the translator paraphrasing the original into his own words? Yes.

 

[bdavidc]

I'm not the one doing the conflating, as you say.

Inspiration is by The Holy Spirit, it is how He reveals... the Truth in His written Word. That means the written Word has to exist beforehand, for us that is, since God already chose those who would write it down.

2 Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
KJV

Is that "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" idea about being inspired? Yes, of course, but by The Holy Spirit, not by man.

And that is what I am saying, to properly understand God's written Word, one must have the gift of The Holy Spirit, since it was written via The Holy Spirit. That is about revelation in understanding by God's Hand.

So which kind of Bible translator would be better trusted, someone who is a non-believer without The Holy Spirit, or one that is a believer with The Holy Spirit?

You’re now talking about something different from the original point. I was addressing inspiration in the biblical sense, which 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 apply to the original writings as they were given by the Holy Spirit. That’s the source of Scripture, God breathing out His Word through holy men. That is not the same thing as translation, which is the process of rendering those God-breathed words from the original languages into another language.

Yes, only the Holy Spirit can open a person’s eyes to truly understand and receive God’s Word (1 Corinthians 2:14). That is illumination, not inspiration. Illumination is the Spirit enabling believers to understand the already inspired text. Inspiration happened once, when the original Scripture was written. Translators today are not “inspired” in the biblical sense, they are working from the inspired text to make it understandable in another language.

Does a believer or an unbeliever make a better translator? The ideal is obviously a believer who will approach the Word with reverence and a desire to be faithful (2 Timothy 2:15). But a believing translator can still be biased or in error if they read their theology into the text, and an unbelieving translator can still be good if they are a skilled and accurate linguist. The standard is not whether they profess faith or not but whether their translation accurately reflects what God actually said in the original. That’s why every translation, no matter who produced it, must be tested against the Scriptures themselves (Acts 17:11).

 

[ScottA]

This is one of those "which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?" issues.

Another way to consider the matter, would be the difference between a word of God from a king, or from a donkey. Which is greater? Meaning: Yes, there are king translations of the Scriptures/Bible, and there are also donkey translations. But is that really important?

Apparently, it is to God.

What is important, is rather the meaning that God brings to whatever translation. Wherein, yes, there are foolish side trips and wild goose chases, and worse, and yet His word--is it not His providence alone? Is He trustworthy to bring all would-be messes of translation together in the end according to His own method and purpose?

I don't see translation as a problem...for "To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven." Even a time of "confusion."

 

[Davy]

You’re now talking about something different from the original point. I was addressing inspiration in the biblical sense, which 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 apply to the original writings as they were given by the Holy Spirit. That’s the source of Scripture, God breathing out His Word through holy men. That is not the same thing as translation, which is the process of rendering those God-breathed words from the original languages into another language.

Oh yes it is very... related to translation to other languages. You are wrong about that, and I just gave you an example from Bible Scripture.